Of course the founders foresaw it. They called it the Fourth Amendment. The Fifth Jerk-it Court of Schlameels knows this. Tyranny always starts with the outcasts. We let them do whatever they want to the 'criminals' because, afterall, we'll never do anything "ill-eagle". Soon enough, anything becomes "probable cause".

This is nothing. The government now has the technolgy to eavesdrop on your cell phone even when it's turned off. As long as the phone has a global positioning in it, they can hear your conversations, even if your just talking to a friend in the living room.

I couldn't believe it when I heard about this.

The Police State is not coming...it's here. The Constitution is no longer a valid document. It is now referred to as a "living document" by our former Attorney General Gonzales (supposedly the head lawyer of our nation) which means it can be changed at the whim of government to accommodate their agenda of control, warfare and wealth protection.

In the old days we taught our children to find a policeman if someone tried to harm them. Now the children are afraid of the police (as they should be). The "We Serve and Protect" slogan they boast on their cars should be changed to "We Harass and Arrest".

As the lights flash and spotlight blinds you, the jack-booted officer comes to your car window and informs you that your tail light is out. He didn't stop you for the tail light...he stopped you to see your "papers" and search your car under any pretense he can find. He is not protecting or serving you, he is harassing you with the hope of busting you for something more than a broken tail light.

Get this : My son who is 17 was stopped for minor consuption of alchol and his cell was held for a week so the police could search though it --- looking for that of aged buyer. So much for privacy. Come to find out he had borrowed some of mine ---shame on him , just another teenager.

I know I don't need to write this, but Mike doesn't mind if I post comments, pro or con, even if I'm not brief. I've already asked him privately in other discussions. So please no comments about that from the peanut gallery. I'm not a blog hijacker and never have that intention.

So, to continue - I know some people on LP think I like to be controversial, but that isn't true. (only when I strongly disagree! lol) Applejack78, if someone is old enough to drive a car, there is no such thing as being stopped for a "minor" consumption of alcohol. Use that term when apologizing the the families whose loved ones were killed by teenagers. Actually, I should just send you my local newspaper from last week. You can add up all the deaths from teen drinking. "just another teenager?" Thank God your son is still alive to complain about the confiscation of his cell phone. Anyway, 21 is the legal drinking age in every state, isn't it?

Rock, I know my opinion is unpopular, but nobody has ever stopped me and asked for my cell phone. Nobody has tasered me. Nobody is trying to catch me or spy on innocent citizens who are minding their own business, Pac. After all, if is this is true, why haven't they caught you yet? :-) Do you think they have the manpower for this? Unless you are dealing illegal drugs or committing a crime, nobody from the FBI or police department is going to bother you.

No, I don't like my privacy being invaded. I even voiced disapproval when my driver's licensed was swiped at the polls. I don't like using my social security number to apply for jobs, but it's the only way they can report my income to the IRS or run a background check. Yes, I'd rather they keep track of the bad guys like the terrorists and illegal aliens who are infiltrating our country. Honestly, did you ever think we actually had any privacy? Just apply for insurance or credit. If you have a soc sec # and you pay taxes or work legally, there is no hiding place and hasn't been for a long time. When you get 100 credit card offers in the mail it's because your name and personal information is being sold by the credit reporting bureaus, the banks, your mortgage company and who knows what else. This is nothing new. However, to say that it's violating a drug dealer's constitutional rights to search through his cell phone is ridiculous. I suppose if we catch a man raping a 5 year old, he has a right to complain when the cops go through his computer to find porn. You must feel that way if you are defending a drug dealer.

I am dead set against entrapment, racial profiling and harassing innocent bystanders. However, please post an article that talks about a housewife who was pulled over while grocery shopping. Using examples with cases where drug dealers were convicted and posts from members who think their underage kids should drive drunk are very, very bad examples of fascism. Indeed it exists and it frightening, but to answer the question "Do you think police are justified in looking through your cell phone during a legal search?" Yes. I have nothing to hide.

Sorry, Mike. I meant Rick, not Rock!   (ROFLMAO)

Sorry for my 4th consecutive post here (almost embarrasing) but I just realized applejack never said his son was driving. I humbly apologize if this is correct. Still, he shouldn't be out drinking at 17, although I did I lot worse things that that at his age. Please accept my apology if by "stopped" you were not talking about driving a vehicle. Hey, Mike - at least I got the number of posts on your blog up! LOL :-)

Cell, by Stephen King, read it.

Interesting comment at the end:

"Mr. King does not have a cell phone."

i wonder if some of these things will ease up a bit once bush leaves office.if we get a democratic president in there maybe this invasion of our privacy will tone down a bit.probably won't be we can always hope.....

Well, Mike. Just make sure you delete those naked pictures of LP members that you carry around.

Police are like everyone else, there are good and there are bad. Honest citizens are easy prey for the lazy, cowardly, jerk cops out there, a very small percentage, just like in the general population, there are jerks and criminals. Nothing is worse than someone with authority and an agenda. As a rule of thumb though, always be respectful to the authorities, be polite and speak clearly, you will always have a better experience. If you have any doubt as to the authenticity of an individual representing themselves as a law official, request identification there of, or ask for a superior.

If a person is uncooperative, drunk, high, beligerent, etc. with the authorities, you will have a bad experience, guaranteed. It is their job to keep people safe from themselves and others.

i just deleted those about an hour or so ago.

LOTTOMIKE
"I wonder if some of these things will ease up a bit once bush leaves office.if we get a democratic president in there maybe this invasion of our privacy will tone down a bit.probably won't be we can always hope....."
___________________________________________________

It will only get worse.

Justx...why is it that whenever I write about something of this nature, you automatically think I'm hiding from the law? Please don't assume I'm some kind of criminal, because I'm not. My whole point was in general.

I'm not hiding out from the police or the government, and I don't sell drugs!!!

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't label me like that.

There is no way I could have obtained my CDL Class "A" driver's license without going through a backround check.

Thanx and have a great day!

You don't have to be a criminal to go to jail these days; even if you've committed no crime, you can still be arrested and tried.
   I lost my handgun AND my right to carry it because I had the audacity to stop a felony in progress. While I was being handcuffed, the police told me that I was NOT being arrested, and that the handcuffs were for their protection.
   What was my crime? I stopped the man who had rear-ended me TWICE and seriously injured my 70-yr-old mother as he tried to flee from the police. The kid had no driver's license, no insurance, the license plates on his truck didn't belong to him and were registered to another vehicle and he was ON PROBATION for Driving While Suspended for having caused previous accidents. Further, he caused ANOTHER accident just a few weeks after he hit me! The cops wrote him yet another ticket and let him drive home.
   My criminal record consists of one count each of Minor Entering a Tavern and Minor Consuming Alcohol, both from the same incident in 1978. The kid who hit me has a record that fills four pages, and includes an arrest for Sexual Assault Against a Minor Child. In his deposition, while the prosecuting attorney sat right across the table, the kid who rear-ended me stated that he had gone to the home of one of the witnesses who would later testify against me at my upcoming trial. He admits that they discussed the case, and when asked about the purpose of the visit, he states that he was there to buy another car! Now, he's still out there, driving around with no license and no insurance, with the full endorsement of the Noble County Prosecutor and the police.
   I was acquitted of all charges at trial. The prosecutor was visibly angered when he learned that I refused to accept a plea bargain, and threatened to add more charges if I insisted upon a trial by jury. I told him to go ahead and add as many charges as he thought he could spell correctly, but no additional charges appeared on the docket, so I can only assume that the prosecutor can't spell any better than he can interpret the law.
   I know what you're thinking - "Well, Jim, why don't you just go to the feds? After all, there are laws to protect us from corrupt public officials."
   Think again. It's true; those laws are there, and they're written in plain English, but try, just try to get ANY state or federal agent to file charges against a public official in Indiana. I spent $15,000 on my criminal defense, and another $5,000 trying to force the police and prosecutor to comply with existing laws that state, quite clearly, that my rights, privileges and property are to be restored IMMEDIATELY upon my acquittal.
   The law says that, under the circumstances, I was IMMUNE from prosecution for having detained a fleeing felon. The law says that I CANNOT be charged with a crime. I was not only charged and put on trial, I am now in the process of being turned into the equivalent of a convicted felon, even though I have broken no laws, and despite my acquittal. The prosecutor wasn't satisfied with the jury's verdict; mine was the first jury trial he has ever lost, so he has decided to have me declared "violent and emotionally unstable." If he's successful, I will be deemed a "Dangerous Person," which means I will not be allowed to own a firearm, even for home protection. I will no longer be eligible to serve on a jury. I won't be able to secure a surety bond for employment. I can no longer serve as my mother's legal guardian, which means she'll have to go to a nursing home. The police will be able to search my home, without a warrant, any time they feel the need. They won't need a warrant to search my vehicle if I'm pulled over, and they can beat me as hard as they like by saying, "He resisted; I was just doing my job."
   I've written my congressman, my state representative, the Indiana Attorney General, our governor, the Indiana State Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission, the United States Attorney General, the FBI, and everyone else I could think of who could help me straighten this mess out. No one is coming to my aid. My life and my rights are not as important as the careers of a corrupt Republican prosecutor and eleven equally corrupt police officers. If we hold them accountable for their own crimes, others working in law enforcement might be afraid to do their jobs aggressively.
   If you ask me, they SHOULD be afraid to pull crap like this.
   
   Jim

Pac, where the heck did I call you a drug dealer or say you were hiding from the police? All I did was joking say "they haven't caught you yet" and then used a smiley. Then I went on to say the police don't bother people UNLESS.... Just the opposite of what you are complaining about. Maybe I hit upon a nerve?

Justx....I didn't mean to jump on your case, but it was just the way you said it. "Have they caught you yet?" I know I know...smiley...lol

I don't have GPS in my phone anyway. So I have permission to talk freely. Hello Hello hello

I'm more worried about big brother hearing my rants about the Illuminati and me spreading the word about them than anything else.

I am pretty sure all cell phones have the same technology as GPS and they have for years Pac. If you turn on your phone you can be tracked at any time. I think you are talking about adding a GPS feature on your phone, but all cell phones work off of tower signals and you can be tracked that way. Hey, I watch "Without A Trace" and CSI, so I have the inside scoop! Seriously, the average person can't track you and you can't use your phone without it being GPS enabled. However, some kind of law was passed a couple of years ago that requires all new phones to have GPS that can be tracked by the provider. So, yes, the police and FBI can find you if you use a cell phone. Ever see Pulp Fiction when the dealer freaked out because Travolta called him on his cell to tell him Uma had overdosed? That's when I looked this stuff up. Read this article:
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2006/05/70829

Jim695, that is exactly the plan. 1) Come up with as many ways as possible to take away Americans' means of defending their lives & property. 2) Let the criminals run wild as a means of future job security for the criminal justice(sic) industry, because Americans will (you guessed it) not have any way to protect their lives and family. 3) Create more "criminals" by jailing those citizens who "break de law" by having a gun, anyway.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that one. I'm not talking about somebody using the phone. I said even when it's turned off, completely off, not after you finish speaking with someone and hang up, I mean turning the phone off.

Also I'm pretty sure, unless someone can show me otherwise, that not all phones have GPS in them. The newer models have one, but not the old models.

I know this because last year when the new Gestapo took over the airport dealings of the taxi business, they made all the permitted taxi drivers use the company phones which had the GPS in them. Why would they do that if everyone has GPS in their phones?

Pac, how old is your phone? I had a 4 year old phone and could no longer use it because it used TDMA technology instead of GSM. Most people don't use the old cell phones anymore. Yes, if a cell phone is off, of course you cannot be tracked. Did you copy & paste the link I posted in my last comment? That explains what I said in detail.   Anyway, I didn't think you were using an old cell phone since you said you travel around the country a lot and drove an airport van before and drive a truck, etc. I'm no tech expert but I thought most carriers switched to GSM from TDMA which would make the old phones obsolete, but I could be wrong.

Sorry everyone & Mike. Just want to say to Pac, I am not arguing with you but today we are not on the same page. You read one thing I write and I see it another way. Again, I am no cell phone expert. But what you wrote about the taxi service is different. I never said that anyone can find you if you use a cell phone, just that if a legal police search warrants it, they can ask the wireless service to find you and they would have to cooperate. I will bet real money that if you currently use a cell phone in South Florida with service like Verizon or AT&T, you have a phone that is trackable. The taxi service isn't a police agency.

There was a case not too long ago about a girl and her mother being constantly harrassed by someone who was hearing everything the girl was saying and making threats to both of them and by leaving messages on her phone. The police are baffled by this and have not yet caught the person behind this. I saw the on T.V. a few months ago. They brought in the finest computer techs to solve this but none of them had any idea how someone could posssibly hear conversations when the phone was off. They even bought different phones throughout this ordeal, but to no avail.

They got so tired that they shut their phones off and somewhow this person was able to know details of the mother and daughter conversations. If I remember correctly, one incident where the girl was wearing some kind of shirt and got a message saying that the color of the shirt was ugly or something to that effect. She was no where close to any windows at the time, so it couldn't be someone with binoculars.

According to the police, they have no clue as to how this person has this technology because they weren't aware of one.

So in essence, if a computer geek with too much time on his hands has this technology, imagine what the govt. has.

I'll copy and paste after I'm done with you...lol

I meant to say a model that hasn't yet installed a GPS yet. It's a cheap pay as you go phone, but it's new, however, even though it's new, dosen't mean it has one.

We're definitely on the wrong page today. All I said from the getgo was about hearing conversations when the phone is off, not tracking, that's very easy to do without GPS.

And the taxi example had nothing to do about the taxi company acting as police. WOW! You are way off...lol I only used that example to show proof that not all phones had GPS in them because if they did, they wouldn't require the drivers to use the company's phones, they would just track the driver's own phones. PHEW>>>
The company wants to know where each vehicle is at any given time. That's all.

Sorry - I give up. I didn't say the Taxi service was acting like the police. I said that, because they are not the police they don't have the right to call the provider to track you legally on your personal phone which is why you needed to use their own equipment. Cell phones are private. However, they are not private if the police get a warrent to track you because they expect illegal activity. You can't use it as a GPS the same way you can't get channel 110 if you don't have the right equipment, but it doesn't mean your TV doesn't have 200 channels. You just don't have the capability in the phone you bought. You are speaking/reading another language today. As I previously wrote, every new phone, even a prepaid phone has a GPS tracking device that police can use if legally warranted. How do I collect my bet? It's a regulation. Just look at any cell phone bill. There is a surcharge for this. how do you think the 911 works?

Hey, Mike - 26 comments! LOL   Let me clear up what I just typed. Prepaid cell phones don't have a subscribed user. My bill has an account number and it's easier to find me through my service. So of course someone who buys a prepaid phone at a convenient store doesn't have to prove who he is with name, address, etc. I was only saying that while it is in use, the location of the call can be tracked. That's all. After it is used and thrown out, the cops would have a tough time finding the user. That's all for now. Watch Law & Order more often. LOL

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/61072
Above is a link to the question at hand.

It says that 95 percent of phones have GPS but not the kind I'm speaking of. The kind where you can use it as a true GPS device, like one of those gadgets that tell you how to get to your destination. Gormin I think it's called. The 95 percent is only for police tracking, not for the govt. to eavesdrop on you when the phone is completely off.

Get it?

The phones I'm talking about are the same ones used by the drivers at the airport taxi company. They have the GPS where the manager can punch a button and know exactly where on a virtual map that vehicle is. It probably shows a picture of a map and where on the map the vehicle is at any given moment.

Do you seriously think that if you decided to get a job at the airport today, that they would say...OK justxploring welcome aboard, and go ahead and use your phone. We'll track your every move because you have a GPS in your phone. You have the 95% kind that is only used by police to track you down. The company could not track where your taxi is with the phone you have.

Pac, I was only responding to what you wrote which was "I'm pretty sure, unless someone can show me otherwise, that not all phones have GPS in them." So (a) I showed you otherwise since you requested that and I am a someone and (b) all phones, when in use, use signals that bounce off of towers, so the calls can be intercepted and the location determined. That's all I was saying. "Get it?"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,115273-page,1/article.html

Here's the phone I'm talking about. It's an GPS enabled phone.

Just send my winning bet money to my address...thank you very much...lol I still owe you a lottery ticket..lol

OK, thanx for responding, but that is not the kind of GPS I'm speaking of. Get it?..lol

I gave you a link. It explains it better than I can.

GPS Phone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A GPS Phone is a mobile phone with an integrated GPS system which can be used for traveling and tracking purposes. These devices usually include built-in maps and turn-by-turn direction software.

I'm done...lol   Now you can argue with Wikepedia. Leave me out of this...lol

Answerbag and Wikipedia are sources that regular everyday people use to make comment on and aren't always accurate. In this case, you are twisting my words around Pac. I know what a GPS is and can tell you just about every feature on one, including the Garmin, Magellan, TomTom or whatever brand you mentioned. Before I buy something I do extensive research. If you go back and read your comments, that's not what you said. What you meant might have been different, which is okay. I am often misunderstood (story of my life) However, I am always the first to apologize (as I did yesterday to applejack) when I possibly misunderstand someone. However, you sometimes argumentative and act like a little kid when you don't get your way. The entire article, blog, etc. was talking about searching through cell phones for personal info, tracking people, and the police invading privacy. Then you said "not all phones have GPS" (referring to the discussion at hand) I only answered saying that any cell phone is trackable to its user's location by the police. We were never talking at all about using a phone to find Wal-Mart or maps to Grandma's house on Sunday.

I would never want to bet money on anything against you if you say you "won" because you said blue and I said something wasn't blue and then you sent me articles about something that comes in blue and then said "See? That's what I meant."

If you read what I say in the second post to this blog you'll see that I made it perfectly clear. In fact I'm gonna scroll down to the second post and copy and paste it here:


Comment by pacattack05 - Yesterday, 12:32 pm
This is nothing. The government now has the technolgy to eavesdrop on your cell phone even when it's turned off. As long as the phone has a global positioning in it, they can hear your conversations, even if your just talking to a friend in the living room.

I couldn't believe it when I heard about this.


That is the Quote above...cut and dry. Then you come along and say that all phones have it. And I said...no, they don't. You meant the generic kind, and I meant the GPS enabled. Sorry, maybe I should've been more specific. Most people I've spoken to about this know exactly what I mean. I never had to explain it to them so I didn't think I had to be specific.

Mike's blog reminded me of this. I know it's not what he's talking about, but just thought I'd show another example of big brother. Very simple.

Also, I'm not arumentative and act like a kid when things don't go my way. There have been numerous times throught the LP forums where I was shown that I was wrong and said "my bad" or something to that nature.

Sure the article was talking about something else...yeah..so what? Does that mean I can't put my own two cents in about something related?

I think it was very obvious to all who read my second post in this blog, that what I wrote had nothing to do with the article. But somehow you integrated what I said with the article. I didn't twist anything around or play semantics, you were the one who melded the two stories together. I simply made a very short statement.

Rumor, Pac. Don't believe it. If it's off, it's off. It's a paperweight. I mean, maybe someone here who is computer savvy can tell me if I turn off my notebook, disconnect it, can anyone track my computer with WiFi? Doesn't it have to be turned on? Since I am not a know-it-all, next time I go by the Lee County Sheriff I will ask a Deputy about the cell phone story. Don't in any way think I am in love with the cops. Not at all. I had a bad situation with them (as a victim, not an offender) a couple of times, but most of them are very hard-working, good family men & women. I just found them totally useless, but maybe their hands were tied by the laws. That said, when I lived on Sanibel they'd go out of their way to help.

Oh, now it's a rumor? Ok just because you have a hard time believing it makes a rumor? PUleeeez.

You were debating the other day with someone about the obesity law, and I kept telling you that I did see it on the news, but you were determined that everyone was wrong. She wasn't sure that it was in Michigan, but I jumped in and said that it was somewhere in the country.

I bet If I told you the story about the thermostat in Los Angeles, before you heard about it that you would probably argue with me for 10 hours.

Now now children. Big brother is watching you.

I guess the one I saw below on T.V. was also a rumor even though it made country wide news?

There was a case not too long ago about a girl and her mother being constantly harrassed by someone who was hearing everything the girl was saying and making threats to both of them and by leaving messages on her phone. The police are baffled by this and have not yet caught the person behind this. I saw the on T.V. a few months ago. They brought in the finest computer techs to solve this but none of them had any idea how someone could posssibly hear conversations when the phone was off. They even bought different phones throughout this ordeal, but to no avail.

They got so tired that they shut their phones off and somewhow this person was able to know details of the mother and daughter conversations. If I remember correctly, one incident where the girl was wearing some kind of shirt and got a message saying that the color of the shirt was ugly or something to that effect. She was no where close to any windows at the time, so it couldn't be someone with binoculars.

According to the police, they have no clue as to how this person has this technology because they weren't aware of one.

So in essence, if a computer geek with too much time on his hands has this technology, imagine what the govt. has.

justexploring -- no he wasnt he was at a between school funtion ( home coming ) and a fellow class mate was really drunk and the grandmother came home --he was the only one who stuck around to help keep an eye on her, the rest of the kids bolted as soon as a adult showed up ! Yes he shouldnt be drinking ---but hello wake up-- under age teens do drink and most parents are blind to that fact , no matter how good we are parents , if they are going to do it; for what ever reason, they will. We must deal with the facts, and talk to them openly of the hazards and hope for the best and pray they make the right choices..

i enjoy reading the comments.post as many comments as you wish.that is scary what was said about the cell phone being off but someone still able to hear you.how are they able to?

Apparently they turn them on, which I was unaware of. I thought they could hear it off.

Go to my blog and look at the cell phone demo. Time*treat found the proof. So I'm not paranoid....lol

Go to the blog called find a new way.